Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has ruled that throwing a chit at a married woman for professing love amounts to outraging her modesty and is punishable under the law.
The court said that throwing love chit on a married woman is an insult to her dignity and imposed Rs 90,000 fine on accused Shrikrushna Tawari, of which Rs 85,000 is to be paid to the survivor as compensation.
The court observed that the modesty of a woman is her ‘most precious jewel’ and there cannot be a ‘straitjacket formula to ascertain whether it’s outraged’ however the very act of throwing a chit on her person which professes love for her and which contains poetic verses is sufficient to outrage the modesty of a woman, News18 reported.
“No-fault can be found with the concurrent finding that the applicant did outrage her modesty. The evidence of Mrs “S” that the applicant used to flirt, make gestures like pouting of lips, on occasions used to hit her with small pebbles is confidence-inspiring and in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I would be loathe to disagree with the concurrent findings of Courts below based on the appreciation of evidence on record,” the court added, according to the report.
The alleged incident was brought to the Nagpur court, on October 3, 2011, when the petitioner, owner of a neighboring grocery shop, approached the 45-year-old complainant when she was washing utensils and tried to hand over a chit. After she refused to accept it, he threw it at her and left muttering ‘I love you’. The next day, he made obscene gestures and warned her not to disclose the chit contents.
Following the victim’s complaint, the sessions court convicted him under Sections 354, 509, and 506 of IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment on June 21, 2018, and also slapped a Rs 40,000 fine, of which Rs 35,000 was to be paid to the woman as compensation.
The accused, however, challenged the verdict by filing a criminal revision application claiming that the survivor had lodged a false complaint as she purchased groceries on credit from his shop and was not willing to pay the amount.
The court dismissed his conviction under Section 506 while noting that the accused deserved a chance to reform and further incarceration is futile.
Since he had already undergone 45 days of incarceration, the court modified his sentence but increase the fine amount to Rs 90,000.
